Do they lean Dem in that district?
I’m not for sex offenders in any way or shape. But why lay laws, on top of laws, that already address this issue.
These people are for bigger regulation and control.
What is next?
Can’t live there unless your Soccer Mom car is valued over $50K?
All they have to do it put in some more parks, a learning center for children and they sex offenders can’t live there.
If this is a community with a Home Owners Assoc. I don’t see how you can’t get away with this. People should have the right to live however they feel fit. Having dirtbags eliminated as neighbors seems more constructive than banning Christmas displays and the American Flag.
The only problem I have is that too many offenses fall under the sex offenders act. There have been stories in the media of guys getting sex offender status for pissing in the forest or 18 year olds for dating a 16 year old.
On the other hand, I know of one neighborhood just north of me drove out a sex offender by force. I think his place might have burned down (or threatened), or he was harassed. I don't remember. This sicko was the real thing and a repeat offender who liked little boys and little girls. He should have gotten life.
That's my problem with the list. Those that really do belong on the list, shouldn't be out on the street in the first place.
sounds reasonable and rational. Therefore,,,it is almost certainly against federal law.
This is a clear case of NIMBY. Keep the sex offenders and other rabble out of “our gated Communiteh” while the little people have to suffer.
A bill of attainder is any law that imposes a punishment because of who you are, or because you’re a member of a class of persons, such as all those with short hair, or those having blue eyes, white skin, blond hair, male genitalia or having attained a certain age. Bills of attainer are prohibited by the Constitution.
Because of the prohibition against bills of attainder, punishments can only be imposed because a person has intentionally committed a well-defined act after the law imposing the punishment was passed, and the punishment can only be imposed pursuant to conviction and sentencing by a court—where the punishment is explicitly ordered by the sentence of the court.
Imposing a punishment for an act committed before the act was made punishable by law is an ex-post-facto law, which is also unconstitutional. Imposing a new punishment for a past crime—after the person has been convicted and sentenced—is both an ex-post-facto law and a bill of attainder, and so is doubly unconstitutional.
Imposing a punishment for simply having been previously convicted of a crime, where that punishment is not part of the sentence issued by a court pursuant to that previous conviction, is also a bill of attainder—for the same reason that imposing a punishment for any other fact of a person’s life which he has no current power to change or undo would be (such as being over 65 years of age.)
New or additional punishments must be imposed only as a consequence of actions that a person can choose to avoid in the future, not for past acts which can never be undone. Punishments are only justified as deterrents to future actions, never as additional constraints or deprivations for past acts. If the punishment for a person’s actions was not already authorized by law before the actions were performed, it is unconstitutional to apply them to any who may have committed those acts before the new or additional punishment was authorized by law.
Criminalizing or punishing a person simply for now having the status of a convicted criminal is no different than criminalizing or punishing a person for once having had any other past status which he can now never change. It is evil, immoral and unconstitutional. It is a violation of the principle of the rule of law, which requires that the same laws apply to everyone equally, and that no distinctions can be made based on who you are.
Punishments are justified as a means to discourage future bad behavior, not as a means for society to discriminate against people for what they have no power to change.
Why should they get special treatment? We’d all like to keep sex offenders out of our neighborhoods.
Convicted murderers, meth dealers, armed robbers, arsonists... ok?
What's the point of living in an exclusive subdivision if you can't exclude people you don't want living there?
If they put in a small playground on every cul-de-sac and set up a few private schools (maybe home schooler association meeting locations), the whole area becomes off limits to sex offenders without actually changing the law.
It may keep them from moving in, but it dose NOT KEEP THEM OUT the own cars, bikes, motorcycles etc.
Short of imprisoning them for life in some place like the Aleutian Islands, with men on 1 island and women on another, they will always be able to get at your children.
The failure is the law and law makers to properly penalize these unfixable preverts.
This was one reason why I've been opposed to the whole idea of "registered sex offenders" in the first place. If a convicted criminal is such a serious threat to his/her fellow citizens that the state feels a need to "register" them, then just leave them in prison indefinitely. Otherwise, there's no point in having an official designation of this sort unless it carries some weight in the form of heavy restrictions that can be imposed by law-abiding citizens.
Equal protection under law......
Once a sex offender completes his/her sentence, he/she should be allowed to live wherever they want.
If that bothers a community, they should change the sentencing laws.
People want to label everyone a sex offender and not hang those that actually molest children. So, we have child molesters out of jail walking around and lots of people called sex offenders that are not, then the people don’t want them living in their neighborhood. People are stupid. Screw them. Any perosn not in jail can live anywhere they damned well want. This idea that we should have two societies, one that thinks they are pure as the wind drivewn snow and those they don’t like and want to label as bad people, leads only to warfare as the half that feels put down and put out have nothing left to lose and kill the other half. History repeats itself.
If someone molests a child they need killed, not let free to roam around and molest other children. Predators on society need put down.